According to the report Update of expertise on RF published October 15, 2009, the undeniable effects on cellular functions are shown for frequencies below those of mobile phones. However, no mechanism of interaction between radio and live cells were identified. In general, the level of evidence showing biological or epidemiological impact is considered insufficient. Uncertainties identified in studies and questions, however, require the public to take certain measures.
Afsset therefore recommends:
- Developing research to resolve uncertainties that remain and be alert to new signals that emerge. Experts estimate that more needs to be done to improve methods of measuring exposure and study methodology. They also express doubts about the long-term effects, especially in the workplace;
- When in doubt, reduce public exposure. Afsset recommends displaying on the apparatus Flow of Absorption Specific (DAS) to allow consumers to choose those that expose the least. It also recommends mapping the country to identify areas where levels of waves are highest and act accordingly;
- Inform with more openness and transparency of all actors of society. To facilitate the understanding of issues and reduce the distance between the scientific risk and the risk perceived by people, Afsset encourages the involvement of all stakeholders as early as the process expertise and decision. It also recommends the initiation of public debates on scientific and technical issues.
Specialists on the same wavelength
This report is the result of a multidisciplinary working group comprising experts in medicine, biology, biophysics, metrology (measurement science) electromagnetic fields, epidemiology and social sciences and an observer of associations (Association Priartém). The study was based on the literature of science and international relations and extended to all radio frequencies. Her expertise has covered the fields of biological and health effects of exposure of people, international regulations and risk perception by the public. The study of biological effects was complex for two reasons. First, as stated in the report, "the observation of a biological effect, let alone under experimental conditions does not necessarily mean it causes harm, much less that it is translated into an effect on health "and secondly, many studies lacked the rigor expected in dosimetry (measuring doses of radiation) and methodology.
Two frequency bands were defined for the study of these effects, depending on their characteristics (modes of action, relevant applications, data available). The first, from 9 kHz to 400 MHz (broadcasting and business applications), was divided after the end of the spectrum: Up to 100 kHz, electromagnetic fields can cause stimulation of excitable tissues (muscles, nervous system); Beyond 10 MHz, the radio frequencies are absorbed and cause thermal effects;
Between these two terminals, both effects exist.
The synthesis of selected scientific work shows that from 9 kHz to 10 MHz (broadcasting, RFID, medical applications), exposure is extremely difficult to characterize. The supposed deleterious effects on human health have been neither confirmed nor refuted. However, changes increasing exposure to this band of radio frequencies and observation of effects on cell division require further research in this area. 10 MHz to 400 MHz (industrial and medical applications), evaluation of occupational exposure is difficult to achieve. If the observed effects are limited and contradictory, some observations encourage further research.
Beyond 400 MHz (television, mobile telephony, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, radar ...) 78 animal studies and 19 in humans have been deducted, respectively, 182 and 44 initials. They reversed the assumptions of carcinogenic effects, geno-toxic, mutagenic, cellular stress, oxidative and physiological. The report notes that "most studies do not suggest health effects, except for some results, limited to a slight increase in minor morphological abnormalities in animals. These minor effects and nonspecific seem limited to certain species of animals and are easily extrapolated to humans.
The lack of response trenches, the next release of the report Intercom and the number of studies excluded for lack of rigor will certainly fuel the debate of the Grenelle waves. When in doubt, the only thing to do is to limit exposure and to continue research that recommends ... just Afsset.
